MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions
Huntercrunch (talk | contribs) |
Master Crash (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Only problem about this, is not everyone has an email address (needed to access chat on the forums) and wish to chat are at a crossroads. {{User:Xzelion/Signature}} | Only problem about this, is not everyone has an email address (needed to access chat on the forums) and wish to chat are at a crossroads. {{User:Xzelion/Signature}} | ||
wel, it'll prevent spam, and also silver mario! :P | |||
{{User:Master Crash/sig}} | |||
===Pers, I agrees...=== | ===Pers, I agrees...=== |
Revision as of 23:13, September 30, 2007
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code ~~~(~). How To
The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights). So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours. New FeaturesNo current proposals. RemovalsChangesFA SupportThe FA system was replaced numerous times, only to go back to the same flawed system. No mistake has been corrected that a supporter must give a reason to support, and I have seen many users support saying "I like character he should be an FA". Well, no longer. 00:46, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
SupportOppose
CommentsSo I'm clear, your's proposing that users have better reasons for voting on FAs, right? -- Chris 01:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT) You are not clear enough, if you mean that support vote for FA should have a better reason, I deffinatelly agree. Glowsquid
X's right let's take down those votes User:Mr. Guy It's not just AmericaThis is something that upsets me greatly almost everywhere, not just on this site; people seem to assume that the only place where games are released in English is America. In most of the profiles here, things are said to have happened in "the American version." I want this stopped; it's not fair on other English-speaking countries. It should be refferred to as the "English version," or at the very least, "the American and European version." Proposer: Davidk92 Support
Oppose
Comments"Creative" headerSome lenghty article are broke up in section, each section having it own header. Some article, such as Yoshi have section-header that differ from the plain (Insert name of the game here.) formula. The problem is, those header make the wiki look informal and amateurish ("Humble Beginnings " is not something that I would qualify as profesionnal, really.), also, the fact than there is two style of headers might confuse the new users. This can really get confusing if the section don't mention the name of the game (Which is quite often.), the proposal is to get rid of all these "creative" header and replace them with more professional-sounding one. Proposer: Glowsquid Crush 'em
Let them be
CommentsSOS: By "confusing", I meant it might confuse the new user on hwo to write those headers, what to do, a creative header or a plain one? Glowsquid
One of the problems with this proposal is that some articles, such as Goomba, group many games under one header. It would be foolish to split the header into multiple headers listing each game, especially when there is not a lot of information. Also, a long header listing every game in that section would not make sense. And, according to MarioWiki: Chronology, headers should be listed in a relative chronological order. If we just stick to game names as headers, we would have two Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time sections in certain articles. I guess I am confused what a "creative" header is or not. That is a very relative term. What would this proposal do exactly? What is a "professional" header? I do believe the header needs to give reference to the events of the game and the name of the game needs to be mentioned in the section, but I don't believe a header needs to simply say the name of the game. Sections are supposed to name the game they are talking about - that's the source of the information. It's wiki policy, but some users may have forgot to put the name of the game in. We simply need to correct those errors. So.....what would this proposal change? -- Son of Suns
I don't think splitting up an header in each is "foolish, like you say. They appear in a game, it's notable. There's not a lot of information? Add some more! As for the Goomba appeatring in both past and presents in PIT... well, I can't say anything about that. -Glowsquid
Deleting stubsIt seems we have a rule that any new Stub articles are to be deleted. However I think that instead the rewrite template should be placed on the article, and if it isn't rewritten in a certain amount of time, it will be deleted, as simply deleting new Stub articles may discourage some newer users, also having SOME info should be better then having NONE, right?
SupportOpposeCommentsMerges and SplitsShrowserWe all know the game MLPIT and we all know Elder Princess Shroob and that she is the supposed final boss of the game but she's not no the real one is Shrowser the shoobified Bowser who is merged with the Elder Shroob. But I think that Shrowser is worthy enough to be it's on article and not be merged with the elder princess shroob so I say we need to split these into two separate articles. Proposer
Luigibros2 Split
Keep The SameCommentsMiscellaneousMove Chat Exclusively to ForumThe Super Mario Wiki has two primary functions: one – create the greatest database of Mario knowledge in the world, and two – unite a community of Mario fans to a common place. The wiki has been successful in both areas, although at times these two areas interfere with each other. Users interested in the community have used the encyclopedia as a playground for fun. Issues in the chat have flamed wars in the wiki, etc. This could turn off potential new users, users who could be great writers and know a lot about the Mario series. I think we need to make the distinction between the two functions clearer. Therefore, I am proposing that we move the Chat exclusively to the forum. Since the forum is a seperate website from the main wiki, new users will not encounter all the fighting in the chat, which is easily accessible from the wiki right now. As such, most community related content will be located off the main wiki. The wiki is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and should be treated professionally (but with fun). However, this would not deny community-focused members a forum and chat for their ideas and randomness. The areas will just be more distinct. User sub-pages will still be allowed, so users can still collaborate on comics and stories. I am just tired of problems in the chat affecting the main wiki, when I feel they should be dealt with on the forum where more community related content is located. Sysops can work on the encyclopedia, while moderators can monitor the forum and chat. As such, sysops can hopefully work on the wiki without having to manage community-related problems. Don't get me wrong. Both parts of the wiki are important - but they should not interfere with each other. Right now, I think the chat is one of the main interferences that can be remedied by moving it to the community-based forum. Proposer: Son of Suns Move Chat to Forum
Leave Chat on WikiNo. I personally think it belongs on the Wiki. If I recall, someone has proposed this before, and the outcome ended up keeping it on the Wiki. Also, what Xzelion said makes sense. ~Huntercrunch CommentsOnly problem about this, is not everyone has an email address (needed to access chat on the forums) and wish to chat are at a crossroads. XzelionETC wel, it'll prevent spam, and also silver mario! :P Pers, I agrees...Okay every time I go on here I noticed several users say "Per ___" "I agree" or "___ is right" but I think these shouldn't be said all the time because whoever say those are to lazy to think of something. Proposer: Mr. Guy Prevent constant these
Just let them
CommentsAnd by the way, you shouldn't call others "lazy" when you're not adding a "Comment" headline, not making a line break, not even filling in the deadline. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 10:41, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
FanvotesOkay on several featured article pages there are fan votes, however due to a recent fight this is getting nowhere so let's just have a proposal on it. Prevent them
Keep Them
CommentsErr... We already have proposal about this very matter. - Glowsquid
After talking a bit with Son of Suns, I think that community-related issue should'nt be brought up on the Main page talk. Why? First, the constant drama make us look like a bunch of idiots, remmember when Max2 threatened to leave for the first time, or when Wayoshi was revealed to be a spammer on the chat? Those ridiculous events very likely turned a lot of potential users off. You hate a guy and want to ramble on how much of a waste of carbon he is? Fine, but do it on the forum, geez. Second: This site is an encyclopedia, something most seem to forgot. You can chat with anyone at any time via the chat or the User talkpage, you can create sub-page that are not even related to editing such as sprite comic or fan-fiction archive, you can upload fours personnal image of your and waste our precious image space, this is being very generous. Some may being more inclinated toward the community side, I understand this choice. But please, don't mess with the editing space! This can be very annoying for users that don't want to be involved in more social-activities. Proposer: Glowsquid Prevent community-stuff from being brought up on the Main Page Talk.
No, let it stay the same.Comments
|